U.S. companies and consumers will only pay 4.5 percent more after the nation imposed 25 percent tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese goods, and the other 20.5 percent toll will fall on Chinese producers ....

In an essay: The National Accounts, GDP and the 'Growthmen' [1]Geoff Tily, the TUC's chief economist, explains that the concept evolved as recently as 1961. OECD technocrats were encouraged by economists like Financial Times columnist, Samuel Brittan to promote policies that would turbo-charge the economy. At the time, Britain was in the happy position of providing full employment to her people. Macmillan's 1957 comment that Britons 'had never had it so good' still rang true. The 'growthmen' as they called themselves were nevertheless discouraged by these high, sustainable levels of employment and economic activity. It is my view that they were frustrated because profits made in the 'real' economy were not as high as the capital gains that could be made through financial speculation. The question was: how to turbo-charge profits? The answer: accelerate 'growth'.
...
"But....but" says the reader: "I'm afraid there's no money." So wrote Liam Byrne MP, in a note for his successor on leaving the Treasury, 6 April 2010. Byrne was doing no more than echoing Mrs Thatcher, who in a speech to Conservative Party Conference in October, 1983 said:

"The state has no source of money, other than the money people earn themselves. If the state wishes to spend more it can only do so by borrowing your savings, or by taxing you more. And it's no good thinking that someone else will pay. That someone else is you."

"There is no such thing as public money.

There is only taxpayers' money."

Her flawed understanding of the public finances was subsequently echoed by David Cameron on the campaign trail, 6 April, 2015. "We know that there is no such thing as public money — there is only taxpayers' money".

It is this flawed economic theory — that all spending is financed from taxation, that the government has no other source of financing, and that like a household, it has, under all circumstances, to 'balance its books' between expenditure and tax income. But governments are not like households, and have other sources of finance. The Treasury working closely with the monetary authorities could finance the Green New Deal without having recourse to tax revenues. In fact, tax revenues (from, for example, increased employment) would be a consequence, not a source of government investment.

Mrs Thatcher's flawed economic ideas are tacitly supported by professional and academic economists, including those at the Treasury, the OBR and the Institute of Fiscal Studies.. It is a flawed theory that has had disastrous consequences, as witnessed by 'austerity' in Britain and Europe. It is economic theory that has delivered a severely weakened British economy, while at the same time it has led to a rise in public and private debts.

Now more than ever, we need trusted governance of our shared environments, natural and built. We need to explore if, when and how commons governance can scale. Yet we don't have decades to wait for social scientists to pursue isolated research projects in loosely connected academic networks. We don't have time for a piecemeal approach. We need a broad, interdisciplinary, international and coordinated research effort focused on commons governance.

I really have to hand it to Zillow. When they post like this, it never, never comes off as PR to me. I get the sincere sense that they really mean it, that they honestly really care, as in give a damn about the poor.

Now, charities that are run well so that a high a percentage of donations goes into truly productive results for those targeted for a hand up are absolutely terrific; however, we must tackle these issues societally and not simply say, oh, the charities will take care of it.

The article is great at getting at Alan Greenspan's first and correct statement but completely ignores or doesn't get the second part, which part is vastly more important right now because it's the part most people who are finally catching onto the first part simply don't yet get.

Paul Ryan: "Do you believe that personal retirement accounts can help us achieve solvency for the system and make those future retiree benefits more secure?"

Alan Greenspan: "Well, I wouldn't say that pay-as-you-go benefits are insecure, in the sense that there's nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody. The question is, how do you set up a system which assures that the real assets are created which those benefits are employed to purchase."

So, what does that second point say? Even Greenspan pointed out right there that it's the more important of the two. It's a pure supply-and-demand price-inflation statement. Greenspan said there that unless the services are in place to fulfill the Medicare and Medicaid needs, then creating more money and pumping it into the welfare system will cause price inflation. Demand will push supply higher, but there will be a lag while the system brings on more capacity to meet the demand (to use up the new dollars so inflation will level off or prices even drop to pre-inflation levels). Greenspan is making the same point I've made more times than I can remember: if we create more money while we have already planned to increase the supply of goods and services and infrastructure (the reasons we'll have even wanted to create more money), we won't have runaway inflation but a stable growth economy without borrowing a dime to do it. Now, Greenspan, of course, didn't have faith in the government to spend the money to do that. He wanted the private markets to do it because he falsely believed that the markets are magically self-regulating enough, something he admitted after the onset of the Great Recession simply isn't true.

... the low income tax credit means people in poverty do not pay state income taxes. But because the state fails to provide refundable tax credits to offset sales, excise and property taxes that low-income people do pay, and because the state has a flat rather than progressive income tax rate, the poorest 20 percent of Kentuckians, who make just $10,000 a year on average, end up chipping in a greater share of their income in taxes than do millionaires.

Jubilee is better than debt slavery, but why do we even have a debt economy? Our current system is less enlightened than certain societies of the Bronze Age; but, do we only want to get to the level of the Bronze Age, or do we want to far exceed it?

For Lamkin, Hurricane Harvey was a proof of concept: that with the right building techniques — like doors and windows that can sustain 130 miles-per-hour winds, steel rods and straps that tie down the roof, and base floors elevated above flood levels — it's possible to invest profitably in coastal real estate.

Before Harvey, he says, he believed in the hurricane construction codes in theory. "But now I really believe in them."

I'm glad developers are taking better building-codes more seriously; however, I want to emphasize that if we don't work equally hard on curtailing CO2 in the atmosphere, storms will continue getting stronger, putting even what's considered the best codes to more than a test in the not too distant future.

Our calculations also suggest these balance-sheet effects will soon get larger. If asset run-offs continue at the Fed's announced pace ($50 billion per month), then by the end of 2019 they will tighten monetary conditions as much as a policy-rate increase of 220 basis points (2.2 percentage points)—as the far-right end of our right hand figure shows.

What are the implications for the U.S. economy? The Fed estimates that once interest rates surpass three percent—their "neutral level"—monetary policy will shift from stimulating economic growth to constricting it. Today, the Fed expects that rates will remain below this neutral level until the end of 2019. But by our calculations, the combined effects of balance-sheet reduction and conventional rate hikes will produce an equivalent tightening in monetary conditions much sooner: by the end of 2018. This fact suggests that monetary policy will start to contract economic growth early next year.

If we could only take this in isolation. Unfortunately, there were the tax cuts and corporate buybacks and also the tariffs. It's a new ball game.

This is exactly why I've been saying all along that Xi simply does not know what he's doing and that what he is doing simply will not work, cannot work.

Not to toot my own horn, but I did write on this blog that Xi doesn't know what he's doing before I saw it in major mainstream news. It sure showed up there for a bit after I said it. What's happened since?

We've had the tariff wars but not a war for democracy, just a better trade balance. That's not good enough. It won't work either.

Chinese university students, inspired by their studies of Marx, are facing an increasing state crackdown on their movement in support of workers who have been trying to organize Shenzhen's Jasic Technology. Prof. Zhun Xu analyzes the situation.

Climate change is already hurting the global economy and will cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars annually unless drastic action is taken to cut carbon emissions, a major US government report warned on Friday.

... the Fed's Community Advisory Council offered its own set of recommendations:

Strengthening the grading process to ensure more lending and strategic investments that help poorly served communities thrive
Requiring public/community-informed plans that reflect local community input and scrutiny
Downgrading scores when banks act outside of the spirit of the CRA and against the interests of the most vulnerable
Creating additional CRA assessment and/or investment areas to reflect the modern age of online banking
Bringing transparency to small business lending by implementing section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act)
Including mortgage companies, credit unions, and insurance companies under the CRA to level the playing field for other financial actors that impact the most vulnerable

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, a former private-equity executive, sounds downright jubilant about the outlook: "Our economy is in such a good place right now," he said during a Q&A event last week. Last month, he said things were "remarkably positive," "extraordinary," and "particularly bright." For Powell, this appears to justify further interest rate increases well into next year, maybe into 2020.

Yet the Fed waited for stocks to skyrocket for several years before it even began consider raising rates from zero, where it had left them for seven years. Couldn't it just wait for workers to see some of that GDP dividend in their paychecks before worrying about the economy running too hot?

To be fair, Powell has recently hinted strongly he knows he better be ready to turn on a dime away from rate hikes and he knows the Fed isn't getting all the info it should and hasn't been doing the best job interpreting the info it does have.

PropertyPak doesn't deal in health coverage directly, but fraud, abuse, and regulations are a general theme throughout insurance and the economy. We come down on the side of preventing fraud and abuse over rewarding anyone with more profits.

"Good providers can work within the existing rules," said Joel Androphy, a Houston lawyer who has handled many health-care fraud cases. "The only people I ever hear complaining are people who got caught cheating or are trying to take advantage of the system. It would be disgraceful to change the rules to appease the violators."

We can't say that, that's always the case, but we'll err on the side of caution over increased profits.

If we allow unnatural monopolies, we will make startups nearly impossible, innovation or not. When were you a startup? Are you still a startup? How soon will the window for startups close if we don't lock it open?

"What we must realize is that, once again, we face what Louis Brandeis called the 'Curse of Bigness,' which, as he warned, represents a profound threat to democracy itself."

I dislike articles on this subject that don't fully address even the subject's most basic fundamentals.

First of all, the article is covering the international rather than purely domestic implications. For the US, for example, the article is nearly irrelevant for the simple reason that the following quoted conclusion of the authors does not apply: "Other initiatives would have to be cut or taxes raised to provide the necessary cash." The US can simply create the money without raising taxes and without borrowing.

Secondly, concerning the following: "The changing nature of firms coincides with a shift in the demand for skills among workers. The demand for less-advanced skills that can be replaced by technology is declining. At the same time, the demand for advanced cognitive skills (Krueger and Kumar 2004), socio-behavioural skills (Cunningham and Villaseñor 2016), and skill combinations associated with greater adaptability arerising (Hanushek et al. 2017)," the authors merely assume that this time isn't different. They are assuming incorrectly that it will be possible, and even necessary, for human beings to keep pace with or get out in front of and stay out in front of technological innovation. It's simply unnecessary for the reason already stated: the US can simply create the money without raising taxes and without borrowing.

Look, there will be major advancements in human cognition; however, AI will not have to wait for that. AI could, and if left to its own devices, will, outstrip what we currently think of as what is needed to produce the goods and services we need and want. My point is that AI won't require human labor in order to supply humanity with everything humans are supplying now. AI will not only meet the percentage we are accomplishing now but continue increasing meeting demand up to 100% with zero human work required.

By the way, VOX appears to be on a crusade trying to convince the masses that they have no choi ce but to look forward to struggling educationally to remain valuable in our capitalist-welfare-state mixed economy. Why?

Why do they appear hellbent on ignoring a Universal Living Income for each and all?

While it is right to worry about massive deflation, the historical relationship between deflation and recession is not all that strong. In a 2004 paper, the economists Andrew Atkeson and Patrick Kehoe concluded that most of the evidence of a relationship comes from just one case: the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The real point is that we might not need a 2% cushion against a period of price deflation at all. I tend to think we don't need it. I tend to think deliberate inflation is a very bad idea. I think deliberate inflation is really a banker-guaranteed-income provision.

An infestation of dots, thousands of them, represent oil wells in the Permian basin of West Texas and a slice of New Mexico. In less than a decade, U.S. companies have drilled 114,000. Many of them would turn a profit even with crude prices as low as $30 a barrel.

Missing from the article is any mention of global warming. Mark my words, just as Monsanto is undergoing an onslaught of law suits, the US oil industry will too.

So, the article is against Pay-Go, that is, pay as you go, that is, not increasing the federal budget deficit. That's because the article subscribes to MMT (Modern Money Theory) talk that diminishes the problem of deficits if those deficits aren't allowed to swell too much. However, there really is Pay-Go without tax increases or budget cuts and which Pay-Go will pay for all the Green New Deal we might want.

I've said it over and over and over, over the decades now: just create the money without any federal borrowing, without any bonds being issued. Just create the exact amount of money to match the real productivity that the Green New Deal will create, and that's that.

The WMO said higher CO2 concentrations are melting ice caps and leading to more violent weather events, which the Bank of England said [on Wednesday, Nov. 21] were responsible for a record $140 billion in insurance losses in 2017.

Micro-units are becoming more popular, following on the tiny-house trend, as millennials tend to be more environmentally conscious than previous generations. Apartment developers are supplementing the smaller units by adding more common spaces to their buildings, in which residents can both work and entertain.

Fully decarbonizing by 2050 the world's cement, steel, plastics, trucking, shipping and aviation sectors could require investing some 0.5 percent of global GDP a year using mostly existing technology, according to the Energy Transitions Commission. But it would bring efficiencies, employment and advances in technology that could more than offset the costs.

Similarly, modernizing aging infrastructure has multiple benefits. Investing the $800 billion or so needed to upgrade America's water systems could generate an almost 300 percent return, according to the U.S. Water Alliance — and generate 1.3 million jobs.

1. Learn how to forecast cash flow accurately.
2. House hacking is an ideal way to get started.
3. The perfect deal is a myth; look for a good deal.
4. After purchasing, properties' ROI comes from strong management.
5. Focus on the fundamentals (and forget the rest!).
6. Leave the slums to the slumlords.
7. You do need a cash reserve, but it doesn't need to be a fortune.

I'm going to deliberately avoid the issues of racism and ethnic bigotry in my own commentary, because they are too politically charge. Different people believe they can or can't read other people's minds and emotions enough to label those others as racists or bigots.

What I do want to address very directly is employment. The article and the Mexican authorities, as far as the article indicates, are focused upon creating jobs, especially in Honduras. However, many of the people who've left Honduras have left because of political oppression and abuse.

If the US is to help stem the tide of migration, it must address the severe lack of democracy in Honduras and not simply money for jobs.

Current job-guarantee proposals create jobs through an updated model of the New Deal work programs that vastly expanded our national resources during the Great Depression. Updated how? They guarantee employment, whereas the New Deal work programs, though unprecedented in size, did not serve all of the unemployed and often short-changed women and black people. The direct government job-creation approach has the added benefit of being anti-inflationary, because it can target job-creation to unemployed workers in contrast to an overall stimulus like a tax cut, which can heat up an economy in areas where there is little surplus labor. The updated New Deal model is a potential political asset. In a recent campaign to promote a municipal Jobs for All program, the National Jobs for All Coalition distributed a Map and Guide to New Deal Public Works in New York City showing that many of the iconic sites associated with New York were created by workers employed in New Deal work programs. (See Gertrude Schaffner Goldberg, "The Living New Deal," D&S, September/October 2017.) A job guarantee achieved through direct government job-creation would not only provide employment and training to unemployed workers and reduce the debilitating social problems caused by joblessness that are so costly to both the unemployed and to society. Jobs-for-all legislation would employ workers in upgrading the nation's depleted physical, human service, cultural, and environmental resources. This is a persuasive rallying cry: that conquering unemployment by government job-creation would not only benefit jobless people, their families, and communities—it would benefit all of us.

"Pollution harms everyone," she said. "But kids are hit the hardest. Pollution impacts kids' health in the short and long term, and ultimately translates into poorer labor market outcomes — lower productivity at work and lower incomes."

It lowers IQs, and those with those lower IQs don't have the intelligence to end the pollution.

The estimated benefits from opportunity zones stem from the idea that providing a tax benefit to the rich should boost the economy of struggling communities, yet this analysis failed to consider lost revenue that could have been spent directly on investment in housing, education, transportation, and other government programs that help build infrastructure in low-income areas.

Even if the tax breaks drive some new investment into low-income areas, this does not guarantee that these investments will ultimately benefit low-income families within the opportunity zones. In fact, additional investment driven by opportunity zones could have the unintended effect of fueling higher real estate prices that serve to displace low-income citizens and businesses rather than benefit them.